Endarkenment, overpopulation, and global civilization collapse - Atheist Nexus2016-12-09T18:35:48Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/endarkenment-overpopulation-and-global-civilization-collapse?commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2176686&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noL'intelligence ne se mesure p…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-04-14:2182797:Comment:22125502013-04-14T20:40:15.206ZNapoleon Bonapartehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/napoleonbonaparte
<p><font size="2"><b>L'intelligence ne se mesure pas des pieds à la tête, mais de la tête au ciel.</b></font></p>
<p><font size="2"><b>Napoleon Bonaparte</b></font></p>
<p><font size="2"><b>L'intelligence ne se mesure pas des pieds à la tête, mais de la tête au ciel.</b></font></p>
<p><font size="2"><b>Napoleon Bonaparte</b></font></p> So you don't see endarkment i…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-03-05:2182797:Comment:21766862013-03-05T00:51:03.349ZShillamushttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Shillamus
<p>So you don't see endarkment in the future?</p>
<p>I too see that humans will prevail given an asteroid doesn;t destroy them</p>
<p>So you don't see endarkment in the future?</p>
<p>I too see that humans will prevail given an asteroid doesn;t destroy them</p> Overpopulation anxiety was po…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-28:2182797:Comment:21739292013-02-28T21:01:07.063ZTom Reeveshttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomReeves
<p>Overpopulation anxiety was popularized by Reverend Thomas Malthus around 1800 or so. This was back when the world had roughly 1 billion people. I imagine if you would have asked Malthus if the world could sustain 2 billion people, he would have laughed hysterically. But since then, population has “exploded” along with overall prosperity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I do believe there is a finite limit to some resources, but not to human innovation. As some resources become more scarce, others will take…</p>
<p>Overpopulation anxiety was popularized by Reverend Thomas Malthus around 1800 or so. This was back when the world had roughly 1 billion people. I imagine if you would have asked Malthus if the world could sustain 2 billion people, he would have laughed hysterically. But since then, population has “exploded” along with overall prosperity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I do believe there is a finite limit to some resources, but not to human innovation. As some resources become more scarce, others will take their place. This does not mean that standards of living will necessarily always improve along the same trajectory (though increased prosperity has been the trend as food, healthcare, technology, industrialization, and energy have generally become more abundant to more people, not less so as time progresses). But it’s a fact that many people lead longer, more affluent lives than ever before, which I attribute to both a population increase as well as the philosophical transition from religious tyrannies to more inclusive societies which promote and support individual rights and freedoms. Producing more people means more innovators, more laborers, more goods. This, in general, is a good thing as long as production outstrips consumption – which it certainly has since Malthus.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>One of Ehrlich’s greatest fears is freshwater (or groundwater), which in some areas will certainly see greater scarcity as populations rise – especially during times of drought. However, as the technologies for reverse osmosis desalination improve, this will drive conversion costs down, bringing potable water to more people in more areas than ever before. But those in areas with high freshwater abundance will certainly pay a smaller fraction of their income for water than people who live in region with a relative freshwater dearth. That’s just basic supply and demand economics.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We have now the ability to adapt and transform our environment as never before, making the collapse of our civilization due to overpopulation and resource scarcity a vastly different prospect than those of the “Classic Maya” which Ehrlich sees as analogous. I think we are more likely to collapse due to the debasement of our currency and overabundance of government interference – more akin to ancient Rome and the U.S.S.R. than to the extinct Mayans. Regardless, I don’t see global civilization collapsing due to overpopulation, for this alarm has been ringing for at least two centuries now and has yet to manifest anything more than greater prosperity.</p> Over population strains the l…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-28:2182797:Comment:21724282013-02-28T18:42:23.125ZJim DePaulohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/carver
<p>Over population strains the limits of the carrying capacity of the planet. The growing demands on available resources - arable land, fresh water, energy and the ocean's resources will challenge all societies. Third world countries and failed states are the canaries in the coal mine.</p>
<p>If the current annual growth rate of 1.4% stays the same it means a population doubling time of 50 years so by 2062 the world population will double to 14 billion people. If we fail to recognize the…</p>
<p>Over population strains the limits of the carrying capacity of the planet. The growing demands on available resources - arable land, fresh water, energy and the ocean's resources will challenge all societies. Third world countries and failed states are the canaries in the coal mine.</p>
<p>If the current annual growth rate of 1.4% stays the same it means a population doubling time of 50 years so by 2062 the world population will double to 14 billion people. If we fail to recognize the consequences of exponential growth we're screwed. Mama Nature does have a cure for this - massive die offs of the offending species. On the bright side, the survivors will have a bunch of stuff, more than enough resources and niches to fill. </p> Nukes would leave an awful me…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-28:2182797:Comment:21717092013-02-28T00:27:07.747ZShillamushttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Shillamus
<p>Nukes would leave an awful mess to live with</p>
<p>Very interesting post Ricketts</p>
<p>Nukes would leave an awful mess to live with</p>
<p>Very interesting post Ricketts</p> These are very important issu…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-10:2182797:Comment:21611562013-02-10T17:09:57.063ZSteph S.http://atheistnexus.org/profile/StephS
<p>These are very important issues and I'm so glad to see you educating others on these issues. I am going to the article link now.</p>
<p>These are very important issues and I'm so glad to see you educating others on these issues. I am going to the article link now.</p> just don't hoard shit.. live…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-10:2182797:Comment:21610512013-02-10T17:09:26.328ZAgeOfAtheists14http://atheistnexus.org/profile/secularorbust
<p>just don't hoard shit.. <br/>live w/o theocracy<br/>learn a bit more than the past has.. ?</p>
<p>just don't hoard shit.. <br/>live w/o theocracy<br/>learn a bit more than the past has.. ?</p> This is the same Paul Ehrlich…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-10:2182797:Comment:21610002013-02-10T16:49:25.436ZSteveInCOhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/SteveInCO
<p>This is the same Paul Ehrlich who predicted billions of deaths from famine in the 1970s</p>
<p>This is the same Paul Ehrlich who predicted the demise of India (and suggested we let it sink rather than spend any effort on the futile act of trying to save it).</p>
<p>This is the same Paul Ehrlich who predicted the UK would be a small group of impoverished islands in 2000.</p>
<p>0 for 3, that's the same record that Harold Camping has.</p>
<p>So you will pardon me if I don't go running around…</p>
<p>This is the same Paul Ehrlich who predicted billions of deaths from famine in the 1970s</p>
<p>This is the same Paul Ehrlich who predicted the demise of India (and suggested we let it sink rather than spend any effort on the futile act of trying to save it).</p>
<p>This is the same Paul Ehrlich who predicted the UK would be a small group of impoverished islands in 2000.</p>
<p>0 for 3, that's the same record that Harold Camping has.</p>
<p>So you will pardon me if I don't go running around with my hair on fire every time this individual says something.</p>
<p>Admittedly at least Ehrlich's predictions contain no "woo" and thus metaphysically <em>could</em> come true. And this time he is wisely shoving the prediction off 37 years into the future so he won't have to listen to people laughing their asses off at him if it doesn't come true.</p>